Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

New submitter greatgreygreengreasy writes "According to NPR, 'Lawmakers in New York approved a bill that will make the state the first to require DNA samples from almost all convicted criminals. Most states, including New York, already collect DNA samples from felons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. What's remarkable about the New York bill is that it would expand the state's database to include DNA from people convicted of almost any crime, even misdemeanors as minor as jumping over a subway turnstile.' Gattaca seems closer than we may have thought. Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"

A bit of me almost wishes they'd just require DNA from everyone and try and get it over with. Either the populace would finally fight back and reclaim some rights or we'd give up the illusion of privacy and at least get some of the benefits that come with that. In the UK you can have DNA taken after being arrested, never get charged and still find it virtually/effectively impossible to get your DNA off of the database.

I suspect that it would be impossible to copyright your DNA and have it hold up. But if someone DID manage to do what you suggested, they would either get a law passed that prohibits copyrighting of DNA or they would get a law passed that allows law enforcement to violate copyright on DNA when required to do their jobs.

Company (say, FreeDNAAnalysis.Com) starts offering free DNA sequencing so you can find out what diseases your predisposed to. But you have to accept an agreement that's so full of legalese that you don't read it/can't understand it. What it basically does is copyright your DNA and grant them the right to sell it to anyone. They acquire more DNA from other sources, such as law enforcement, or other government agencies who are collecting the data.

Then entities start buying this data. Insurance companies, or drug marketers, DHS, or whoever stands to make a profit from knowing that you have a family history of depression, ADHD, schizophrenia, heart disease, murder, whatever.

You, being a smart fellow, had the foresight to copyright your DNA beforehand. But your DNA was taken and sold off to FreeDNAAnalysis.Com because of a speeding ticket you had back in 2019.

Now the insurance company wants to jack up your rates because FreeDNAAnalysis.Com says your DNA makes you at risk to develop irritable bowel syndrome. You'll need an expensive lawyer in order to even be heard by anyone besides a call center drone in India. You'll need to give the lawyer your house to actually sue. And even then you'll probably lose. So you give up and just pay the extra $20 in insurance costs, which, when spread out of millions of people equates to a small rise in quarterly profits and bumps up the stock price of all of the companies involved.

You, unknowingly own some of the stock in your 401k, but it's not enough to amount to shit.

Well, a big problem with this requirement is that DNA isn't sequenced for identification. That's far too expensive (for now), but would allow for accurate identification excluding mosaics and twins (the former is likely underestimated in frequency since it's rarely relevant outside of this sort of analysis).

The traditional method is to chop DNA at known uncommon sequences so you get several pieces, run them on a gel that separates them according to size, and see if the sizes and number of fragments match-up. This works because humans have a few variable length repeats that vary in size and change with each generation (an over-simplification, e.g. the repeats often expand if the mother has the gene but not the father). Modern DNA analysis is a bit more sophisticated, but the underlying principle is the same.

So, how frequent are false positives? In an analysis of Arizona's 65,000 inmates [latimes.com] researchers found 122 9/13 matches, 20 10/13, 1 11/13, and 1 12/13. Some of these were relatives but it's hard to say how many given the study was anonymous. So, it's a low rate but not low enough to use as police would like. I'm sure it'd be very easy to find some DNA at a crime scene, run the DNA search, find one person that matches and lives in the area, and arrest them for the crime.

It's hard to argue that it's a false positive if you live a block from the crime scene and fit the physical description, but merely because people don't understand statistics very well. (E.g. if it turned out to be an 80 year old Chinese lady and not a 20-ish Black guy that resembled the description, then nobody would arrest her.) And, prosecutors are going to argue the one in 108 billion theoretic odds, without any deeper understanding of the statistics and genetics that make false positives more likely.

Setting aside, for a moment, that I have tons of non-genetics issues with such a law, I must say this is premature. In a few years we'll be able to cheaply sequence DNA and have far more accurate identifications. Furthermore, we may be able to find genes and such that make violent behavior more likely, thus aiding research. So it's illogical to adopt this technology now rather than when it actually works well in a few years. It's not like the military immediately started commissioning Wright flyers as bombers and scouts.

Fingerprinting is old and mature tech. DNA profiling is still very new, and not very reliable (when you're talking about 1:300,000,000 error in the most detailed profiling that's currently used, however rarely, that's not very reliable. Even less reliable when you're using 32 markers or even 16, when the error ratio goes down to 1:4,000,000 and 1:100,000 respectively). What makes it *even less reliable* is the absolutely pitiful methods employed to maintain records of custody of samples - cross contamination is a real danger, both in transit and inside the lab. Fingerprints can be a: taken on scene, b: sent through an AFIS terminal and c: matched ON SCENE. The chain of custody is limited to *1* and the possibility of cross contamination of the sample is ZERO.

DNA carries much more information about a person. As technologies improve in the genetics industry and with human ingenuity for dastardly deeds, it's not hard to conceive of how this information could be abused.

Once you're in the system, there's usually no way out. Be very cautious about things with things that can't be undone.

It isn't, but the idea of fingerprinting got well established before we realized how unreliable a way of identifying people it is. Fingerprinting is a decent way of establishing the identity of someone in a setting where you can take their fingerprints in a controlled fashion and compare them to a record of fingerprints taken in a similar manner. However, it is a terrible way of establishing the identity of the person who left fingerprints at a crime scene. There was a study done a few years back where they submitted fingerprint samples to ten experts over a period of time. Only two of the experts returned the same results for the same sample when it was resubmitted to them (with them believing that it was a new sample).

While it may be a bit a paranoia, it is certainly not fear mongering. Fingerprint data which is merely an image of the swirls, loops, etc. that make up your finger print basically only one use to show that someone (or thing) left a print a certain location and then to show you are or may have been the person that left that fingerprint.

Your DNA on the other hand is a veritable cornucopia of information. It can reveal your genetic sex, relate you to your family members (who may also be in the database), tell if your a risk for a disease or cancer, a carrier for sickle cell anemia, the list go on and on and well on.

This is a slippery slope issue. New York states that no one else will have access to the information, at least not today. Researchers, medical companies want and eventually ask for and may be granted access to this information to be used to benefit them, not us.

Also consider that processing DNA is much more involved and technically challenging fingerprints, that concerns already exist about chain of custody, accuracy of the information kept and generated...

The attorney general's office has the power to declare laws, and then to enforce the laws that it declares

The police now meet the definition of a paramilitary force, and get large amounts of surplus military equipment from the US military each year.

Law enforcement agencies in America have vast, secret intelligence operations

Law enforcement agencies in New York are now known to have secretly monitored innocent people, for no reason other than their religion

There are so many laws in effect that the police can arrest almost anyone on a whim -- they are nearly guaranteed to find a violation it they simply watch a person go about their daily business. People have even been arrested and prosecuted solely for resisting arrest.

There are more prisoners in the United States than in any other country, including authoritarian countries with larger populations (China). Only the USSR and Nazi Germany had larger prison populations.

Do you really need to ask why people are opposed to further increases in police power?

Should also mention that the NYPD is particularly bad on the police state mentality:* Their attacks on peaceful protesters during Occupy Wall St, most notably Anthony Bologna pepper-spraying [youtube.com]. Forget the First Amendment's assembly clause.* They're currently engaged in a massive program to spy on Muslims [timesunion.com], all without a warrant, without even notifying the jurisdictions they're sending their officers into, and of course violating the First Amendment's free exercise clause by very explicitly targeting anybody wh

What would a criminal need to fake your DNA at a crime scene? A piece of hair from a brush or comb or from your last trip to the barber shop? A few flakes of skin that they could collect from you as they brush past you in on a crowded subway terminal or restaurant?

DNA can identify you, your parents, your children and other family members.DNA can show your genetic odds for diseases like diabetes or alcoholism.

Once your DNA is in the public record:- Your health insurance rates might go way up because you have good odds of diabetes.- Your car insurance rates might go up because you fit the DNA profile of a drunk, even if you don't drink.

And what do you do if you happen to be an identical twin, triplet, etc, whose sibling committed the crime?

Even if your DNA was never taken, it may suddenly be difficult to get certain jobs because now employer background checks might run a DNA scan on public databases and find out you have a relative convicted of fraud. (I might feel better about this if DNA-based background checks were required to be a candidate in an election.)

There's nothing unreliable about DNA testing. They even employ controls to rule out laboratory contamination.

Fingerprints are actually *more* reliable.

A pseudoscientific method is not more reliable. They don't employ any controls in fingerprint analysis at all. No one who knows anything about this thinks fingerprints are more reliable in DNA. The difference is that with DNA they've taken steps to determine how reliable it is. With fingerprints, they have

I think you need a citation from a credible source on that one? Are you perhaps thinking of the fact that there are different types of DNA tests with different levels of specificity? The less accurate tests are used more commonly for a first round of testing, not unlike blood types, to exclude a suspect. When trying to uniquely identify an individual the more accurate, and more expensive, tests are used.

As usual for an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights, the UK got there first. In England, you get your DNA taken and stored simply if you get arrested - you don't even need to be charged, let alone convicted.

Part of processing your arrest involves taking your biometric identifiers (fingerprints, DNA) and storing them. If you are not charged or are acquitted, you can apply to have your biometric data destroyed, although I understand this process is complex, lengthy, and almost always unsuccessful. This is obviously the wrong way to go about it, but it's the way it is.

This is being challenged in the ECHR, if I remember correctly. Destruction without request on no charge or acquital would be a start, taking samples only upon conviction much better. However, it's all "to prevent terrorism" or "to protect the children", so I'm surprised they don't ask for an actual pound of flesh.

Problem is even if a decision comes from the ECHR the UK courts have said that they'll treat them as advisories and nothing more, to be discarded when it suits (have a look through decisions made in the Family Division of the High Court, particularly at Hague cases. Wall LJ himself went public stating that he spoke for the vast majority of judges in saying that ECHR had no jurisdiction in British courts and that their decisions would be summarily ignored).

This is a lesson society has learned from the computer age. While a record can be deleted, it is really still there. On the drive, on a backup, on someone's laptop, on a flash drive, in a cache file, in an email, or some combination. Laws exist to make it illegal for governments, service providers, telecoms to delete data. So once it finds it's way to certain points it is protected from deletion.

If we really want DNA to not be held, then it must never be collected in the first place. And since it is so easy to do, and so prevalent it is unlikely that will ever happen.

As usual for an invasion of privacy or violation of fundamental rights, the UK got there first. In England, you get your DNA taken and stored simply if you get arrested - you don't even need to be charged, let alone convicted.

So by that logic, the police shouldn't take and store the fingerprints of anyone they arrest, because they haven't been charged or convicted. Yet the police have been doing exactly that for more than 100 years.

Those "fundamental rights" you complain about were lost a long time ago. A

Most violent criminals have their beginnings as a crying baby. Ergo, we should collect DNA from all crying babies. This will allow our helpful government to keep us safe. I'm way more concerned about turnstile jumpers than our government collecting a little DNA.

They already collect DNA samples from every infant born in New York State! This is done under a regime of genetic disease testing. However, the records are kept and not destroyed. At some point in the future, I expect this database and the criminal database to be linked (if they are not already).

When my child was born, I tried to opt out and the hospital said it was mandatory. The state requires it. More info here: http://www.wadsworth.org/newborn/services.html

DNA's dirty little secret: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.bobelian.htmlTypically, law enforcement and prosecutors rely on FBI estimates for the rarity of a given DNA profile—a figure can be as remote as one in many trillions when investigators have all thirteen markers to work with. In Puckett’s case, where there were only five and a half markers available, the San Francisco crime lab put the figure at one in 1.1 million—still remote enough to erase any reasonable doubt of his guilt. The problem is that, according to most scientists, this statistic is only relevant when DNA material is used to link a crime directly to a suspect identified through eyewitness testimony or other evidence. In cases where a suspect is found by searching through large databases, the chances of accidentally hitting on the wrong person are orders of magnitude higher.

You don't bother questioning anybody. You arrest and charge the guy from Albany (came up first on the alphabetic list; don't even look to see if there are any other matches because that could compromise what follows), use DNA evidence to argue that the chance that it's not him is less than one in a trillion, secure a conviction on that basis, and chalk up one to your key performance indicators. If the guy from Queens commits another crime, you get him for that one and you have two crimes solved, whereas if

ARGH, PLEASE don't link to the Daily Mail as an authoratitive source for anything, ever, please. They routinely misrepresent the results of scientific studies (willingly, and ignore attempts to correct) in the name of sensationalism.

The study they cite in that "article" is available here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727743.300-how-dna-evidence-creates-victims-of-chance.html

We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.

I'm curious how many people who are generally considered to be law-abiding citizens have a misdemeanor at some point in their past which did not lead to later felonies. I'd really like to see that number, becaue I bet it would dwarf the amount of people who escalated their criminal activity to felonies later in life. How many criminals do you have to apprehend using these new samples to justify getting samples for all of those law-abiding folks?

There is a book "Three Felonies a Day". From the Amazon description "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague."

Or how about the obvious sentiment that EVERYONE STARTS SOMEWHERE. No one starts out murdering people, for fuck's sake. You might as well claim that most criminals start out breathing air. Yeah...no shit.

When you take away everything, you have nothing to lose! And someone with nothing to lose is the most dangerous thing in the world!

That's so right.

Once you get a criminal record, you can never work again. Every employer - even for a shitty minimum wage job - requires background checks. Of course, everybody thinks that if you were arrested, you did something horrible - not that you had a joint and you were charge with possession, intent to distribute and even if you knelt on the ground and handcuffed yourself, you were also charged with resisting arrest.

We live in a society that, when it comes to taxes, terrorism, drugs, and child molestation or the perception of it; you are guilty until proven innocent. And with the threat of long drawn out trials that are prohibitively expensive and a good chance of being convicted for something, folks take a deal; which ruins them for life.

Prison isn't for rehabilitation: it's the initial punishment before you're condemned for life to poverty.

Unless you're a banker or someone with great political connections - a 1%'er.

'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"

We also know that violent criminals very often start their lives as children. The earlier we get every child's DNA into a data bank the higher our chances of living in a crime free paradise.

So that anti-piracy ad is correct? If I download a movie or buy bootleg DVDs from China, I'll eventually turn to hard drugs and killing? Wow. (That was sarcasm; the NY guy's statement is bull and backed-up with no facts.)

One thing I'm worried about is the moment when the owner of these DNA databases figures out that they can start selling the information to stakeholders like drug companies. What rights do even felons have to ensure this sort of thing never happens?

Drug companies won't be interested, but law firms will be. Specifically family rights law firms.

Specifically, full US DNA fingerprinting checks only 13 Loci, out of millions (if not billions). None currently are known to code for disease, and honestly it would be extremely unlikely for any of those 13 to code for disease.

HOWEVER Those loci are inheritable, so you can tell whose father is whose. Which can lead to divorce and/or lawsuits over paternity payments.

Richard Aborn, one of the bill's backers, said, 'We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.'"

It's an undeniable fact that a comprensive DNA database of the citizenship would help police do their job. Obviously that's not the only consideration; if it were, why not give the cops unlimited power?

The powers we give the police, like the power we give to anybody, should be me

We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.

We also know that nonviolent criminals begin their careers as noncriminals. Why not just require DNA samples from everyone?

When police finally had a lead on the BTK serial killer they obtained a sample of a relative's DNA [mit.edu] because they didn't have enough evidence to get sample of his. I assume that will become one of the primary uses of New York's database.

We know from lots of studies and lots of data now that violent criminals very often begin their careers as nonviolent criminals. And the earlier you can get a nonviolent criminal's DNA in the data bank, the higher your chances are of apprehending the right person.

One of the little factoids that many people don't know--over 90% of all first-time criminals have never committed a crime before. That's why we need to get all the innocent people's DNA into a data bank--so we can increase the chances of apprehend

So let's suppose you have a family with a checkered past. You have never been convicted of anything. However one day a partial match comes through and lo and behold, your father's DNA doesn't quite match, but they suspect a family member. Can they compel you to submit to a DNA test?

Hasn't your father 's DNA just convicted you?

In other words, old DNA evidence might be used on a fishing expedition to convict family members as well. Is that reasonable? I'm not so sure about that.

Law and order isn't a game, but it is stacked in favor of the accused. Hence the phrases "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt". It damn well better be substantially harder to convict someone than for them to show a reasonable doubt about it, because otherwise you create a society in which people can just be thrown in prison. That's getting increasingly easy to do, but in most cases there's still a court involved, and they do still care about things like evidence procedures and presumption of innocence.

I don't care that the guy gets off, if the police were sloppy. Even if he's a murderer and everybody knows it. The police need to do their job right, because if they're allowed to get away with illegal searches and still get the conviction, we're all at risk.

I'm not even some paranoid libertarian, but this is pretty basic justice.

Someday, the system may have the power to force absolute conformity upon all its people. Of course, this results in civil harmony but ends innovation and adaptation, which exhausts civilization, which ends humanity. Earth returns to its 'natural' state until the sun goes supernova and incinerates the planet. And now for the bad news . . .

I'd like to propose an amendment to this bill that expands the requirements to every state employee who has to get the standard DOJ/FBI background security check that requires fingerprints.

After all, it's perfectly reasonable to direct the very same concerns that concluded with this bill at the security screening process for state government employees as part of an enhanced standard background check. Do that, and it would go a long way toward addressing my concerns with this bill.

Privacy issues notwithstanding, I happen to agree that there are mainly legitimate, beneficial uses for tracking DNA just as we do fingerprints. Once the governor, AG, cops, etc are all in the system, I believe they will have a much more of a vested interest in those very same privacy concerns.

For most of the Rich they are not breaking Criminal Laws, they are more often sued under Civil law.Criminal Law people can go to jail have a criminal history.Cival Law People pay money.It is Murder vs. Wrongful Death.

Well there are enough laws on the books that for any given person, you can find at least one felony offense that they have committed. Look it up yourself if you do not believe me -- not only are there numerous overly broad laws, but there are so many laws in effect right now that the government itself has actually lost count:

The sad truth is that with the difference in the burden of truth between civil and criminal law AND the fact that the state collects a fine, there is ample reason for governments at any level to file civil rather than criminal charges. The latter generates no revenue, but does incur the cost of prosecution and incarceration. Sadly this makes the state an accomplice after the fact in many of these cases, and the victims do not recover their lost money. The wrongdoers have come to see paying the government

Is this for white collar criminals too? Oh wait, the rich don't go to jail, they just make settlements.

Actually the rich will be subject to DNA collection; however, the procedure will be slightly different.

The government will send over a special 'collection agent' who is trained to collect the subject's DNA in a manner that is both pleasant and non-intrusive (unless the subject is into that). To further ensure that the subject is not overly stressed, the collection process will take place at either their home or an expensive hotel. Finally, to show all the people whining about special privileges for the wealthy that rich people aren't above the law, everyone with sufficient wealth will be subject to frequent and vigorous retesting.

Nice comparison arguments...
Madoff pissed off so many rich, and it was so public that no doubt it lead to where it went.
Blagojevich is an insane person who somehow got elected, and was Governor of a state that had three other convicted Governors in the past 30 years. So, he was also a message to the government to stop dicking around with Illinois. Oh, and he is guilty.

So my question is, what is going to happen to Blago's hair now that he is in prison. Will it stand the test of time there and still look perfect? Will it be able to deflect bullets? Will he donate it to charity?

I am going to miss the comedy he has provided over the last three years to the fine state of Illinois.

Why are you thinking about being a Criminal inside the United States? If so you can stay in Canada we don't want you.Sarcasm aside...Having your DNA on record isn't much different then getting your fingerprints taken, which will happen if you get arrested too.

You swab your mouth. It gets shipped to a Lab. They put the swab in a machine that records key DNA records and saves it on a hard drive... This isn't a full GNOME match this only gets a few key elements enough to identify you. Compared to trying to solve a crime, you find DNA evidence then you need to use other means to track down the criminal to get their DNA so you can match them up. Taking Teams of people doing investigation to track down the person. Vs. getting the evidence sent that to the lab... Yo

And there are no cases where people have been innocent but still convicted just because there where a very strong suspicion that the person did it...

Or how about that there are lots of people accepting rulings without a jury because they cannot afford a lawyer and accepting a 2 year probation sentence instead of risking going to jail and loosing everything they have.. Just getting arrested for something can cause havoc on people's lives, even if they are cleared of all wrong-doing..

I refuse to believe this is is constitutional. A policing body taking my genetic code and doing god know what with it if I jay walk or look at a cop wrong? Lets see how this silly piece of paper hold up in court.

Criminal convictions are all about reducing your rights, and your anonymity, from that point in time forward. If they can retain info like photos of your face, tattoos, scars and other distinguishing physical features; biological information like height, weight, fingerprints, blood type, medical conditions, etc... then how is retaining info on your DNA something new and unprecedented? I'm a bit fuzzy on what is unconstitutional. Creepy yes, unconstitutional probably not.

The 2 issues, is that this is done prior to any conviction. The second is this is gathering of evidence for a crime that has 1) has not occurred 2) is requiring people to provide evidence against themselves solely on the assumption of a probable cause of nonviolent criminals may become a violent criminal.While I think a case could be made that taking your DNA may not in it's self be a violation, but taking it with the expressed reason of using it to be searched for every crime they investigate where DNA is

I get the creepiness factor, DNA is an unimaginably detailed description of a person. However I don't really see any *new* legal issues that have not already been addressed by the courts. I'm sure the collection and retention of fingerprints generated a bunch of lawsuits back in the day. How is the current legislation authorizing the collection and retention of DNA at conviction any different than the old legislation that authorized the collection of fingerprints at the time of arrest and the retention of f

>(fingerprints) are retained in order to identify suspects of future crimes.

I don't think that would have survived a constitutional challenge. They must be taken primarily to either verify identity, or towards evidence of a current crime with probable cause. The fact they were then allowed to be retained and searched later is allowed, but I don't think as the primary purpose, they would not be allowed to be gathered without other primary cause.

I apologize if I was not clear but I absolutely agree that the collection of fingerprints is motivated by the arrest and investigation; it is only the retention that is motivated in part by possible future crimes. The DNA legislations seems somewhat milder than the fingerprint case in that collection occurs at conviction, not as a routine part of the arrest.

Like fingerprints, DNA is routinely left behind as a person moves about in general society. Glasses, bottles and cans we drink from; even object that

Watch Gattaca (where people are denied jobs simply because they have bad genes, even though doing that is technically illegal). I'm not saying we've reached that stage yet but why would I want to have my DNA in a government database waiting for that future to arrive?

I don't want my DNA "out there" anymore than I want to use my real name on the internet so google can develop an easily-searchable profile of my actions. This DNA collection reminds me of what the East German police did -- collecting millions

Do you actually know that or are you just spouting off the top of your head? I would suspect the opposite. It doesn't seem unreasonable that once you have a conviction, you are a high risk for getting more. And this is crime we're talking about, not jaywalking.